In 2009, he led 350.org's organization of 5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries. In 2010, McKibben and 350.org conceived the 10/10/10 Global Work Party, which convened more than 7,000 events[3] in 188 countries[4]

In 2011 and 2012 he led the environmental campaign against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project[6]

He is a Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, where he also directs the Middlebury Fellowships in Environmental Journalism.[44] M

McKibben has been quoted as saying that he personally believes increased use of nuclear power is necessary to reduce carbon emissions, yet he is reluctant to publicly promote nuclear energy because such a position “would split this movement in half”.[32]

350.org is "the first planet-wide, grassroots climate change movement, which has organized twenty thousand rallies around the world in every country save North Korea, spearheaded the resistance to the Keystone Pipeline, and launched the fast-growing fossil fuel divestment movement."[1]http://keywiki.org/350.org

Father and paternal grandparents are communists.Mother a left-wing activist specializing in films on community organizer radical Saul Alinsky.married someone from a family loyal to the Canadian Socialist Party.

Spent all her time in college “protesting the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the curriculum and the media.,” before dropping out.

Writes books on anti-capitalist and anti-corporate themes.

She praised the militancy of protestors who “have concluded that it’s not enough to overthrow one political party and replace it with another, [but] are instead attempting … to topple an economic orthodoxy.”

In 2011 Klein supported the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, lauding its efforts “to change the world” and urging its activists to fulfill the promises of the anti-globalization protests in which she herself had participated a decade earlier.

In 2014 Klein published This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, a book claiming that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with industrialization have caused immense environmental harm, as evidenced by a growing incidence of “extreme weather events” like hurricanes, typhoons, droughts, and heat waves. (Klein's premise of an increase in the frequency of such natural disasters is inaccurate.)

Calls for ‘economic transformation’ away from capitalism: denounced capitalism as an “increasingly … discredited system” that “venerates greed above all else,” and as “a pretty battered brand” that “is failing the vast majority of people” by causing “so much more inequality,” “destabilizing the climate,” and “waging a war on the planet’s life-support system.” Moreover, she suggested that the perceived threat of “climate change” could be utilized as a justification for the enactment of sweeping economic reforms

calls for a ban on such technologies as fracking, genetically modified crops, geoengineering, carbon sequestration and nuclear power [Editor’s Note – When pressed, McKibben will tell you is not opposed to nuclear power]; Klein opposes the construction of the Keystone Pipeline,

Klein's proposed “Marshall Plan for the Earth” would replace all coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power with wind, solar, and hydropower by the year 2030.

McKibben: “My leftism grew more righteous in college, but still there was something pro forma about it. Being white, male, straight, and of impeccably middle-class background, I could not realistically claim to be a victim of anything. Not for lack of trying—in one short but loony phase, I convinced myself that I was Irish-American and wore black armbands when Bobby Sands and his IRA companions starved themselves to death [in a hunger strike].”

First book The End of Nature (1989) - Emphasizing the threat of an imminent global-warming catastrophe, the book suggested that the earth was headed for environmental destruction as a result of human industrial activity. The only hope for preventing such a calamity, said the book, would be to implement far-reaching intergovernmental regulations and to dramatically alter the polluting lifestyles of Western cultures.

1999 book Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families, in which he argued that one-child families were ethically superior to their larger counterparts because the existing rate of human population growth was detrimental to the environment.

Much of McKibben’s writing extols the virtues of “de-development.” In the author's view, mankind's ever-increasing technological and industrial progress corrupts both human nature and the natural environment. For instance, in his 2003 book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, McKibben wrote: “They’ll lead us ... toward the revolutionary idea that we’ve grown about as powerful as it’s wise to grow; that the rush of technological innovation that’s marked the last five hundred years can finally slow ..

McKibben's 2007 book Deep Economy, and his 2010 book Eaarth: A Guide to Living on a Fundamentally Altered Planet, both delivered the author's characteristically anti-economic growth, anti-technology message advocating the “controlled decline” of modern industry.

[As distilled by Stanley Kurtz] – McKibben advocates “a large-scale return to the land. Labor-intensive (rather than carbon-intensive) agriculture would form the nucleus of a new, quasi-peasant society. Relatively self-sufficient local farming communities would be protected not only from global warming, but from capitalism’s cycles of boom and bust.... Americans would consume pretty much only locally grown food.... Food would cost more, choice would be drastically reduced, and putting meals together would take a great deal more effort than it does today.”

Identifying the United States as the world's chief polluter, McKibben attributes that vice to a combination of American “materialism” and “hyperindividualism”—i.e., people's desire to live in large houses situated far from densely populated areas. In McKibben's view, European-style collectivization is not only more environmentally friendly than capitalism, but is also more conducive to human happiness.

July 2012 article in Rolling Stone, titled “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” - McKibben stated that the earth's environment could only be saved if average temperatures worldwide could be limited to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above where they had stood at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. And this goal, said McKibben, would require mankind to leave at least 80% of the planet's known oil, coal, and gas reserves permanently buried and untapped.

Advocates steeply escalating carbon taxes. Emphasizing that the implementation of such measures is a matter of great urgency, McKibben warns that “our whole civilization stands on the edge of collapse.”

In his 2011 book Eaarth, McKibben advocates cutting fossil fuel use 95%, according to energy commentator Alex Epstein. In a 2012 debate with McKibben, Epstein said: Making fossil fuels essentially illegal would be a massive incursion on liberty and ruin billions of lives around the world. It would be suicidal. McKibben is not being upfront on what this would do to your life: your food costs, the factories that opened on cheap natural gas, etc. What would government policies curtailing all these things back 95% actually look like, Epstein asks.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_a9RP0J7PA

Editor’s Note: McKibben’s book Deep Economy (2008) sets forth in more detail his not-very-original critique of modernity and the consumer economy. “[G]rowth no longer makes us happier,” McKibben wrote in a 2007 Mother Jones piece, “Our houses are bigger than ever and stuffed to the rafters with belongings…” We have all the modern conveniences, but “none of it appears to have made us happier”. He attacks individualism along the way: “We left behind hundreds of thousands of years of human community….” “If we’re so rich, how come we’re so damn miserable?,” he asks. Speak for yourself, McKibben. A rising standard of living was never meant to provide all of human happiness and the entire meaning of one’s life. That comes from family, friends, personal associations, religion, and other non-material factors. The real problem with McKibben’s anti-consumerism sentiments is that they are now articles of faith among the greenarati. This writer attended a left-wing Congressman’s town hall on global warming some years ago (Car Dealer Congressman…) . The audience members were congregants in the High Church of Climatology, a church McKibben helped to build. One lamented during the Q&A that it was a nice presentation, but everybody would just climb back into their cars and go back to their oversized houses afterwards. Guilt is a wonderful thing, environmentalist leaders must be thinking, a powerful motivator to keep the faithful in the fold. McKibben’s answer to all this modern misery and existential ennui, as laid out in Deep Economy – localized economies “with cities, suburbs, and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own culture and entertainment.” A return to cottage industry and small-town life. America has seen a long parade of social critics pleading for just such a retreat from modernity. Henry Ford, call your office.

McKibben cynically advocates fossil fuel divestment as a means of turning the climate change debate into a movement. In 2012, he wrote in Rolling Stone, “A rapid, transformative change would require building a movement, and movements require enemies. … And enemies are what climate change has lacked.” Enter fossil fuel companies, made-to-order enemies.https://patriotpost.us/articles/50293

McKibben wrote an August 2016 cover story for The New Republic in which he repeated the erroneous claim that Mark Jacobson’s all-renewables energy program would need only “about four-tenths of one percent of America’s landmass.” It would actually take 6 percent, making Jacobson (and McKibben) wrong by a factor of 15, according to a National Academy of Sciences paper. The co-author’s cited Jacobson’s numerous shortcomings, errors, modeling errors, and implausible assumptions. Extrapolating from Department of Energy data, others found that the wind energy component of Jacobson’s plan alone would require a landmass twice the size of California.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448846/renewable-energy-national-academy-sciences-christopher-t-m-clack-refutes-mark-jacobson